detokaal

This is a cover up to hide the real motivation: she is a woman and black, and none of you want her involved in a tech company. Disguise this all you want as opposition to the war or Bush or whatever. It is really opposition to her gender and race. This is how you do in silicon valley where blacks and women are considered token employees hire to look good. So make up stuff about her and move her out. Now you have your high-tech lynching hiding behind phony moral outrage.

Overlooked sidebar: the fact that we are having this discussion, that China is listening to some degree, and that Apple is having an influence on Chinese labor conditions speaks volumes about how capitalism changes nations for the better. Anywhere a degree of free trade is introduced, freedom expands. In this case, these workers are going to be better off in the long run with Apple, because someone, somewhere in the Chinese bureaucracy, is making some money in the supply chain, and they don't want that to ever stop - even if that means giving these workers just a little more freedom, safety and salary.

As a teacher in a ghetto school, and as a child of parents who grew up poor (and of grandparents who survived the great depression), let me help him make some distinctions.

I have noticed two distinct types of poverty. The first is the OP type: generational poverty based on dependence and a mind-set of either victimization or unbreakable poor choice habits. They are stuck. Getting these kids out of the situation, is as he says, nigh impossible. I've taught 1000s of these kids, and their upbringing, the habits they learn, and don't learn, the role models they have, are difficult to escape and change. A handful of students out of each grade somehow leave - and never come back. The one characteristic they all seem to share is that somewhere along the line (genetics or personality) they have a work ethic or type A character. Even so, they do not have the social skills to advance very far in their careers past college and entry-level job.

The second type is the working poor. They don't really exist anymore as I know them in my parent's generation. They bust ass in 16 hour days of hard labor, save money and penny pinch, always planning for the future. Now days, this attitude is found in many middle class families. My uncle won't even collect his SS check because "he doesn't need it." My relatives would rather starve than take anything from the government or even their local church.

The first type learns how to do the opposite: game the welfare and social system for every penny and benefit and get, even if it requires dishonesty. These people coach their children on what to say at school to the adults to ensure they get all of the free benefits, and to ensure we don't call welfare for an inspection of their homes or income.

/rant off

You've made a mistake writing all of this and placing it in public. It can now be used in court in any way his attorney sees fit. Don't talk to anyone or ask for anyone's advice. Get a lawyer now and turn it the case over to him or her ASAP.

There is a basic problem with many of these ideas. Current research in education is showing that technology alone is not enough enhance student learning. In other words, putting a computer, device, method or software in a classroom adds nothing to test scores or student outcomes. (As a time saver, I'll let you Google up the citations). We have learned this far too late in education, having spent billions and billions in this area with virtually no return in concrete results. The trend is to use these things as fancy drawing and typing and adding gizmos that simply replace pens and paper: a waste of potential.

It is also true that teachers don't want to mess with more of this stuff. We are already beat over the head on a regular bases with the latest and greatest methodologies, books, ideas, etc. on a regular basis. Ask any experienced teacher about their faculty development meetings and they will just laugh and tell you about the last 30 years of innovations that were supposed to have changed education.

Here is what someone needs to do in my opinion. Ideas should include LONG TERM training (2-3 years) that is mandatory in their sales package, back it up with solid research, and provide a payment model similar to a lease or student pay-to-play (where you aren't hoping their newest principal or school board also likes the idea the previous group did). In other words, PROVE it works, teach teachers how to use it, and give schools a realistic way to pay for it over a period of years. If not, you're just another one of the 40-50 "latest and greatest" idea I've seen come and go over the decades.

Good luck.

Power.

That is the answer pure and simple. You can cloak it in deep discussions about statistics and attitudes and backgrounds. But there it is, naked for all to see. Liberals OWN acadamia and will not give it any of their power over the curriculum, philosophies, budgets and directions to any group who holds other ideas, much less ideas the may change the balance of power they hold.

Sadly, the most important part of her article, "We are never the best interrogators of our ideas. It requires motivated critics to lay bare our hidden assumptions, our misreading of the data, our factual inaccuracies" will go unoticed by the people who need to hear this information the most. It is ironic that the very essence of universities: scholarship and research, are the things most damaged by conservative discrimination. The ideals that should be held highest are the ones most damaged, and also the things LEAST cared about, behind money and power.

People will be people won't they?

"Do you think Americans are that stupid that they won;t see antisemitism" Do you think we're little children who can't think for ourselves."

Yes.

To imply that the media has no influence on the general mass of population is ignorant at best. There is a reason most governments censor the media, seed the media with favorable information or outright ban them: they move people to action.

Dawkins and most others here are missing the primary issue: evidence. What qualifies as [evidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) for scientific purposes is limited. It excludes (or minimizes) evidence the human beings accept in most other areas. You would no more cite your neighbor's belief in the shape of the earth for a scientific paper than cite the number of flowers you bought your wife as proof that you love her. There are many reasons people believe Bible accounts for rational reasons outside of scientific evidence.

Also implicit in most of the posts here and Dawkin's piece is to assume there is zero scientific evidence for a young earth or any other Biblical story. As Feynman was fond of saying, it isn't up to science to determine truth all the time, but rather what is more or less likely based on what we currently know. It is most likely our universe is X years old based on what we know now, but even those ages have changed by wide margins in the last century. We don't know how much more it will change in the next century. But we are as sure about the current age as astronomers were 100 years ago.

For the record, based on our present scientific knowledge, it is more likely our earth is 4.5 billions years old than 5000. But we don't know for sure, do we?

You have to know what you don't know. In other words, you need a sense of the gaps that exist in your knowledge and then fill those gaps. This is a side effect of...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

... and a key part of continuing education in any field. The best way for students of any age to grasp this is to take practice tests. Look at what you missed, and go fill in that gap. A similar method it to look at a completed project or paper and wait for the aha moment, "I didn't know you could do that." Then you go find the answers.

Ugh, another story provoked by the tragic shooting in Arizona. Worse yet, it implicitly links Beck to the shooter by its timing. It's clear now there is no link. Period.

The shooter's videos and writings cite everything from the Communist Manifesto to Mein Kempf. His friends describe him as a liberal. Most people are unaware Ms. Gifford is Jewish. Is that why this Nazi-influenced man killed her? Let's not draw lines connecting things that create a desired picture. If he was Arabic and owned a Koran, would we make the same leap that some would eagerly make if actually owned a book by Beck? What if he was a registered Republican (he registered independent and didn't vote in the recent election)? Stop it folks, please.

He was a nut case, plain and simple; no more and no less.

That being said, can we agree that violent rhetoric and imagery is a poor choice for anyone in politics? Does it really matter if it a map with cross hairs created by a PAC supporting Sarah Palin or a map of bullseyes created by the DNC? So Beck uses violent wordplay? Don't forget Obama, "They bring a knife, we bring a gun" and "hit back twice as hard" or even "punish your enemies." Just yesterday, Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa said about GOP Gov. Rick Scott: "They ought to put him against a wall and shoot him." We can find an equal number of bad examples from all parties, races and genders.

Maybe it's time for everyone to stop.

P.S. His most violent video rant has the song "Bodies" by Drowning Pool playing in the background. I would be remiss to point out what a horrible influence heavy metal music is on our youth today. That must be the real reason why he shot those people...

Visibility and Value. Athletics are far more visible, and thus on the community's mind to a greater degree; plus athletics has a higher value than education for most of our parents here.

In our community, the football team is number one. The team (and coach) receive far more media coverage for their wins and losses than classroom students get for test scores. Parents of football players value the victory more than academics as well. Parents will purchase hundreds of dollars in gear, shoes, summer camps, etc. but those same kids have no internet access, no notebooks, no highlighters, no basic computers or software.

Losing 10% of football games in a season gets the coach fired because everyone hears about it every day and because it is important to the school board and parents. 50% of our students drop out before graduation and it gets a paragraph on page 6 of the local paper, and no one cares because we have a great school: the football team won the conference again.

It appears his Fide rating is about 2200, which is comparable to about 2300 in the USA. For non chess players, his rating places him in the top 2% of rated players in the world.

Here is his US Chess rating history:

http://main.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=120...

Active tournament player here, FIDE 2100. They key point to remember here is that computers are able to avoid the tactical pitfalls that humans cannot. In other words, they can see all the possible outcomes within a given number of moves. The fewer the pieces, the farther ahead they calculate and play perfectly. Indeed there are databases of up to 7 pieces that are used for perfect play.

Humans cannot see as far as a computer, but they don't need to do so. Grandmasters recognize over 10,000 common positions (after the opening phase) and their strategies based on experience and study. This allows them "know" the probable outcome of a given move far beyond that of a computer. The problem arises when the complexity of a position grows to a point that tactics > position. Human players avoid these positions when playing computers. Strong human players aim for these positions when playing a weaker opponent. And computers can be programmed for "anti-human" strategies that create these complications.

Kasparov was aware of all these variables, but underestimated the tactical ability of the machine. And, ultimately failed, because he fell for a well-known trap in the opening during the last game. The computer was programmed with a database that included the trap. Kasparov was too - with his memory - but unlike silicon, simply forgot for a moment and made the fatal move that sealed the match.

What does the mean for business? A superior long-term strategy that anticipates short-term problems trumps a short-term strategy that knows all the immediate outcomes but neglects to consider the end game.

Sure. One of my favorites is still the doctest module in Python library. Elegant is how I would describe it.

I have been a teacher for over 20 years. My tenure has been 1/2 in an upper middle class community and the recent 1/2 in an inner city school with a 50% graduation rate and 80% free and reduced lunch rate.

What bothers me about this question is the word "innovation." It is too big. From a learning standpoint, there is no need for innovation. Research is pretty clear about the methods by which learning takes place. We have decades of materials and studies and experience. Of course there is always new research that might put a fine point on some of these methods, but the basics are well-known.

From a teaching standpoint, there has some been innovation in the last 15-20 years. This comes primarily from technology in the form of brain scans and neuroscience. Even still, good teachers have been using methods that take advantage of this knowledge. But we used it before we knew how it actually worked. Good teaching hasn't changed as a result, but we are able to show (and convince) new teachers why you should use a given methodology.

From a technology standpoint (since this is HN I assume that is the direction you want to go), don't waste your time. Computers in classrooms are just another tool, like a TV or pencil or book. Technology is just another body of knowledge students are expected to know before they graduate. We have had enough studies now that show putting computers in classrooms make no difference in outcomes. It is only helpful if a teacher is trained to use that tool, in the same way that a teacher is trained to use books and notes. Effectiveness is dependent on its use and not merely its presence.

The current classroom innovations in education, and the ones making the most impact in our schools, and many others, are human relationships. (I will address innovation outside the classroom in the next paragraph). Students who connect to teachers learn more in that class. Period. They show up to school, they listen, they are more likely to do the work, they are more interested in the material. This has been the saddest revelation to me in my teaching career. These kids in inner city schools have no dad, many times no mother and are usually one of several children by different fathers. All of them know of someone personally or an immediate family member in prison, or dead from violence or addictions. They are transient with no permanent home. In short, they are desperate for an adult to care about them. They live day to day and never learn skills like organizing, planning, or time management. They have no role model, and it is very difficult to be one as a teacher when you have 35 kids in your classroom for 40 minutes a day. Until a student knows you care, they don't care what you know or what you have to show them. It helps if they have a parent who values education, but those are rare. Many students tell me their parents dropped out of high school and they still have a house and food and car and cell phone. They do, but it is provided by the government.

The biggest innovation to be made is in the structure. Everything is broken. Everything. Steve Jobs summed it up nicely. I'll add that as long as education remains a political issue, politicians with assume control with regulations and laws that benefit the most powerful voters - the voters most likely to re-elect them. For a long time that was unions. It is currently shifting to parents. In some places, business wields the most influence. Let parents decide where to send their students. Give their money back and let it follow the kids. Free teachers to achieve a set of standards using the methods and tools most appropriate for their communities. The standards don't need to change, but the freedom to teach in the way that is best for your current group of kids has been taken away.

That's enough - nothing is going to change.